Re: [tied] Basilica

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>> No. It isn't. The first /i/ is a late creation in Dacoromanian
>> and in Aromanian "bisearicã". Also Aromanian is "bãsearicã", or
>> even "bâsearicâ". In ancient Dacoromanian texts one has "besericã",
>> "bãsearecã", "bisearecã". In Meglenoromanian: "bãsericã" and in
>> Istroromanian: "bãserike". So the Common Romanian form hadn't any
>> /i/ in the first syllable, but an /&/, regular result of Latin
>> unstressed /a/ as the first one in "basilica". Later developements
>> are not relevant for what happened before Common Romanian split.
>
> The first /i/ is a Late creation in DacoRomanian AND in Aromanian
> you say.

Thank you, Lord, Alex understood at least a phrase.

> The meglenoromanian and istroromanian /ã/ can be from a form with
> /e/ as in the dialectal form beserica since usual /e/ > /ã/.

In general, yes. In this case, no, they aren't.

> It won't explain the /i/

As pointed out, later metaphonies and dissimilations are of no
concern in which concerns evolution from Lat. "basilica" > Common
Romanian "*bãsearecã". The /i/ is to be found at a later period,
as one can infer also from the trend suggested by ancient forms.

> and I don't belive in a separate invoation in Dacoromanian and
> Aromanian , both of them making individualy in /i/ there.

So you believe rather that there was a Dacian word "*besilica"
(`ruler's house`, since there were no churches in old Dacian times),
took by Greeks with /a/ instead of /e/ and regressively derivating
"basileos" (`king, prince, ruler`), got into Latin meaning a special
kind of building, then (still in Latin) it acquired the meaning of
`God's house` at some historical moment when the same semantical
shift occured by miracle in still spoken Dacian, and afterwards
the phonetics got to forms with /e/ > /&/ in all four Romanian
dialects, but the /e/ you infer as original curiously evolved also
to /i/ in just two of them.
Well, I'd say your vision is [censored word].

> And you try to put the inverse way /a/ > /ã/ > /e/ > /i/ which
> seems pure speculative.

It is not speculative, it's the only logical assumption agreeing
with linguistical facts. By contrast, your inference on the basis
of just two dialects of four and disregarding other Romance data,
made without any clue about analysis methodology and instruments,
_that_ is pure speculation.

Marius Iacomi